I have a unique and difficult challenge. I am fighting the mass of trivia. In this era of novelty and distractions, writing for a general audience has become an exercise in mass marketing. Blogging takes my work into a durable storage but it quickly looses it's immediate time significance. The blog tags my work by a word in the first topic sentence. Most of our interests are prioritized by accessibility and preferences. What If someone has something really important to say? Significance is associated by "Authentication by Proxy." (Even the word "Authentication" is not considered a word.) It is normal to rely of other people to tell us what is worth reading. Some of our "Interest Based Learning" is out of curiosity, but there is nothing like word of mouth for generating buzz about a new book, movie or art. Large corporations have huge advertising budgets. But in an era of viral statements, sound bites and trending there isn't a lot of free attention. Art now days more than ever has unavoidable business realities worked right into execution.
Generally, we are reading for or writing to a specific audience. I must be willing to edit, edit, edit. Rewriting, redrafting and re-editing is so important if you want to reach an audience. If you have a drive to self critique, this can be an advantage. But, "Angles, Handles, Hooks, Gimmicks and Genera are the closest thing we have to tracking a literary work toward publication. Marketing, public relations, social networking and limited liability incorporation are all inevitable responsibilities that go with any real success as a published author.
But my work, although about the "Speculative Arts" like psychic reading, is not just a creative proposition. I am working in very esoteric unfamiliar areas. There is far more misinformation about my craft than there is clear analysis of the tools and applications. Including comparisons with other traditions and disciplines has created an open dialogue about all the diagnostic sciences. It is never going to do to presume authority on the "Unknown." The best I've been able to do is to identify areas of controversy, and shape the models we use to examine these uncertainties. I myself do not want to buy into "Deterministic Prognostication." I believe that even when making predictions can be done accurately, Theoretically that's not going to be speculation anyways. This is why I have tried to incorporate a statistical mechanics to plot out elements of a possible probability matrix. But even mapping a categorical structure onto a predictive model almost guaranties the overuse of biased preferential indexing. (Selective reasoning) My writing is boring for most readers, and many others of you wont want to read this document because I'm a "Psychic." What's a speculator to do?
"Basically What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate." Let's fix that.
